This post may contain Mildly Adult content.
Mildly AdultAsking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Can someone explain Asexual.

I was thinking I was. And my significant other got upset and said no. That means you have no sexual attraction. Even to me. I said no. I just don't like being sexually active because my Drive is so low. Sometimes in the moment I feel it. But I thought there are levels of being Asexual.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
MissNoahLenFoxx · 31-35, F
Asexual scientifically means that it is an organism that reproduces with its self; does not need a partner to mate. When applied to humans it’s more of a joke rather than a real thing. Humans are social creatures and we need one another to survive no matter how we identify. Being Asexual does not actually apply to us…. That’s why it’s funny/a joke. It’s a sardonic way of saying that you don’t need anyone.
helsbels · 31-35, F
@MissNoahLenFoxx The second part of this is not true at all.
AuRevoir · 36-40, M
@MissNoahLenFoxx I remember learning this in the 7’th grade and now everyone these days acts like they forget what science is..
helsbels · 31-35, F
@AuRevoir Words can have more than one use or meaning
AuRevoir · 36-40, M
@helsbels in most cases, it would make sense… but not when scientific meanings of words had been created and used long before..

And then suddenly people who probably failed science class came up with an idea to make those sane words mean something else that make it sound like it’s related when it’s not..

Let’s put it this way for example.. if you were to walk around and ask a majority of todays high schoolers what the scientific definition of asexual means.. would they give you the correct answer? No they wouldn’t.. and therein lies the problem..

Hence not only is it objectively stupid for whoever came up with it.. but it’s also making people stupid..

Have you read the comments here on this thread? They’re full of contradictions because they can’t even clearly define something.. when someone can’t clearly define something In a discussion or argument.. 🙄 you’re not going to convince me that they’re on the more intelligent side of the spectrum..

Scientific explanation = Clear, defined, and wrapped in a neat little bow.

Everyone else defining it with new age understanding for a representation of what it should be in humans = Unclear, accounts of definition for it contradicts one another because of that lack of clarity, no actual understanding in a unified form.

🙄 people can drink their stupid juice if they want. And these same people will tell you they believe in science but let it be known that only @MissNoahLenFoxx gave the actual scientific answer.. 😒 so here’s a point to make, if everyone can’t define it, should they even be pretending that they’re intelligent enough to understand it? Should it even have the label they gave it since it makes no sense that it has no actual definition for it? Yes words can have multiple meanings but they’re given clear multiple definitions for their use when they do have them… how come in this case it’s not so clear then?? 😒
helsbels · 31-35, F
@AuRevoir If someone says they're asexual, and you don't know whether they mean they feel no sexual attraction to anyone, or that they reproduce with themselves, or can't tell by context which usuage they mean, you’re not going to convince me that you’re on the more intelligent side of the spectrum 😅
helsbels · 31-35, F
@AuRevoir And I do see your point and understand your frustration. It's like 'PIN' standing for Personal Identification Number, but everyone says 'PIN Number'.

Asexual might not be entirely 'correct' in its alternative usuage but it's the word that has been chosen, and has come to have that meaning. I could see 'non sexual' being used, but then that's not entirely correct either as asexual people can still have sex 🤷‍♀️
@helsbels no youre wrong. Humans connot be asexual. Like the op says. Asexuality are organisms that self reproduce.. Slugs, some worms, and such. Humans cant self reproduce, a partner is required
helsbels · 31-35, F
@req89hikowquou Correct, humans can't self reproduce. But they can be asexual.

You can suffer from a stroke. You can also stroke an animal. Same word, different use/meanings. It's not complicated.
@helsbels no they cant. No such thing as that in humans.. Just a fancier word for the word single. Your version of that in humans is just a substitute word for single.
helsbels · 31-35, F
@req89hikowquou No, though 😂

You can be straight and single, homosexual and single, asexual and single. You can be asexual and in a relationship. You seem to be the one misunderstanding this.
@helsbels put simply single. So much single.
helsbels · 31-35, F
@req89hikowquou Single status is nothing to do with it
@helsbels dont make me laugh.
helsbels · 31-35, F
@req89hikowquou I'm not trying to argue, but you simply don't get what the term asexual means in this context, I'm trying to explain but if you don't want to listen or learn, then fine.

What would you describe it as, what do you think it means (when people say they are asexual, not the other definition)